What difference has it made, one CC win for Warrington, helluva difference

I do.

So can you have.

www.companieshouse.gov.uk.

Make sure you get all the various group company accounts though - for example, Wire and Hudds each have three companies where you have to do a pro-forma consolidation to see the whole position. And just how much Moran and Davy have put in, as well as e.g. the massive benefit Wire had from the Tesco development. You'd need to have the skills to interpret them, of course.

And the point had nothing to do with winning trophies. Quite the opposite. It was about how those three clubs (and good luck to them) had managed to be "...resilient and grow without silverware" - which is indeed what they have managed to do. The trophies will follow too, certainly for Wigan and Wire - I am in no doubt about that.

A lot of Yorkshiremen believe that when God created the world, he made it with perfect balance.
He balanced the hot areas with the cold areas. the dry areas with the wet areas.
And, in creating Yorkshire, he created the most glorious place on earth - full of majestic beauty and sporting giants.........and for balance he created....... Lancashire.

All three clubs have very wealthy owners bankrolling them and allowing them to spend the full cap and invest in marketing and other off-field resources.

Its that that made the difference.

hth

So the people of those three towns, took a look at the clubs and thought, well they are playing sh!t rugby, they are winning nothing and going nowhere, but I'll tell you what I'm going to get myself down there to see this rich bloke they've signed.

Maybe with these type of guys at the helm they understand long term strategies, they understand marketing, loss leaders and invest to impress. Maybe they are just better at running things.

Since you have the access and the skills would you care to put up the precise figures for how much money these 3 have bank rolled their clubs by, could you then also publish how much money the other clubs have borrowed.

So the people of those three towns, took a look at the clubs and thought, well they are playing sh!t rugby, they are winning nothing and going nowhere, but I'll tell you what I'm going to get myself down there to see this rich bloke they've signed.

Maybe with these type of guys at the helm they understand long term strategies, they understand marketing, loss leaders and invest to impress. Maybe they are just better at running things.

Since you have the access and the skills would you care to put up the precise figures for how much money these 3 have bank rolled their clubs by, could you then also publish how much money the other clubs have borrowed.

Actually yes I could, and a while ago I did (don't think I did Wigan at the time) - obviously any costs paid directly by the owner that did not go through the club (and there is no reason at all why that should not happen) will not show up in that analysis. Also of course its based on thge latest filed accounts, which for most clubs means 31/12/08. Wait until end September (probably longer for HKR again...) and I'll be able to give you 2009 numbers. I'm not going to set about the exercise in full again now, but if I get a few mins at home in the next day or so I'll put up the numbers for those 3 clubs.

And I fear you are deliberately seeking to misunderstand my point. It is an observation and not any kind of criticism. Wealthy owners prepared to put a lot of personal money into a club means that (for example) the club can go recruit and retain some good marketing people. And, as has rightly been pointed out on various forums, the clubs that have got their marketing right - and adequately resourced - have tended to be the ones who have made great strides in building attendances (even Hudds). Marketing requires money, and if you ain't got the funding in the first place, then you'll not be able to compete with those who do. Off the field as much as on the field.

As a specific example - Wigan have a very good and effective marketing director. Who has a decent budget to play with. He used to be at Bradford, where I'm sure he learned a lot in the early SL years. I'm sure he will be earning a lot more now than he did - or could have - at Bradford, and for sure he has a far bigger budget than Bradford. Bradford cannot even afford anyone senior in a specific marketing role now. Wigan have gone from success to success off the field, well before the on-field performances caught up. Bulls have gone from bad to worse, and by common consent its marketing appears poor. Would Bulls have fallen so far with a wealthy owner to bankroll the club - off the field as much as on it, given the salary cap restricts the latter? Its surely not rocket science, is it?

And yes, maybe the wealthy owners ARE better at understand long term strategies, maybe they do better understand marketing, loss leaders and invest to impress. Maybe they are just better at running things. The likes of Ken Davy, for example (I know more about him than some of the others) have proved they are very very good in their respective fields and businesses. And they likely did not get to where they are today by thinking they can do it all themselves. Hence they go out and recruit - and pay - good people. Maybe that is why they have amassed the wealth to enable them to become wealthy owners? Guys like McManus, for example, are clearly very capable and shrewd businessmen - I quote him because of the outstanding job he did turning Saints finances and everything else off-field round.

All of which in no way detracts from my point - if you have a wealthy owner - and especially one who has got to be one through their own business success, you likely have a huge advantage OFF the field - and especially in marketing - than if you do not.

And as for why some clubs have managed to attract wealthy owners and some have not...you tell me. Maybe there is no wealthy fan interested enough, or appetite to take on the task? Maybe the existing owners have not been prepared to relinquish control? And if the latter, and if there were candidates otherwise ready willing and able, then they deserve everything they get.

In the early SL years, when other clubs were spending the newly-arrived Sky money on a player arms-race, Bulls invested much of theirs in marketing. And we saw what happened. Bulls were way ahead of the field in marketing and in crowds.

Since then, other clubs have caught up - in every way - and the majority now have wealthy AND CAPABLE owners to provide additional financial and management resources. Many have now overtaken the Bulls. And we have seen what has happened.

Actually yes I could, and a while ago I did (don't think I did Wigan at the time) - obviously any costs paid directly by the owner that did not go through the club (and there is no reason at all why that should not happen) will not show up in that analysis. ................And as for why some clubs have managed to attract wealthy owners and some have not...you tell me. Maybe there is no wealthy fan interested enough, or appetite to take on the task? Maybe the existing owners have not been prepared to relinquish control? And if the latter, and if there were candidates otherwise ready willing and able, then they deserve everything they get.

Lenigan at Wigan isn't spending to the cap limit, he also ruled out players (stars if you like) on big contracts being brought in in the future. He doesn't seem to see who you a sign as being an effective marketing tool, others in the past at Wigan did and for its time it worked but the salary cap changed that and Wigan couldn't adapt.

The Bulls, borrowing from near neighbours Keighley but more importantly Peter Deakins studying of American sports marketing, were the front runners on marketing Super League, they had success to coincide which undoubtably helped, but they went down the put on a show route and it worked. Were Bradford bank rolled by a multi-millionaire at the time, I don't think so. Bradford at that time had a man who was to become the most influential marketing guru of that particular era and it paid off.

Has Bradfords problem been that Peter Deakins success held back the club, I think it may well have. Everyone who steps into the role has big shoes to fill but is also given the job of reviving the Deakin model, Bully n all, as opposed to adapting to a different era with different needs.

Have Bradford got the names and addresses of all the missing supporters from the terraces, after 15 years Bradford should have a good database of nearly everyone who has been into Odsal, are the club using this to chase up fans?

Wigan have gone back to some simple poster campaigning, local stores such as Sainsbury's having a poster at the entrance, probably in exchange for a small add spot in the program a very low cost highly visual bit of product placement. You don't need to be a great marketing guru to come up with that one.

Its easy to look at someone else and say well they can do it because the owner has lots of money, they have lots of money because they don't let it go easily.

Have Bradford got the names and addresses of all the missing supporters from the terraces, after 15 years Bradford should have a good database of nearly everyone who has been into Odsal, are the club using this to chase up fans?

Wigan have gone back to some simple poster campaigning, local stores such as Sainsbury's having a poster at the entrance, probably in exchange for a small add spot in the program a very low cost highly visual bit of product placement. You don't need to be a great marketing guru to come up with that one.

And that's fine for Wigan - not because they are "rich", because they have an audience that is inherantly interested in Rugby League. I'm not saying Bradford isn't, but in my experience, Bradford is the one area in "the heartlands" where RL is embrased the least. People are becoming more and more apathetic towards the club and the area in general - and that's only going to get worse as people of my generation (I'm mid-20s) can't get out of there fast enough, at least in my experience. Bradford could get Max Clifford in and it wouldn't do a jot of difference - the only thing that would count would be the results on the pitch.

Plus - with the whole "bullmania" thing, I'm reminded of the linefrom Futurama - "You've seen it - you can't unsee it". IE - It's not a draw for folk anymore because it's been done to death and not just by the Bulls. It's very hard to reinvent something like that - the trick is when it is done well it looks incredibly easy and obvious.

Plus - with the whole "bullmania" thing, I'm reminded of the linefrom Futurama - "You've seen it - you can't unsee it". IE - It's not a draw for folk anymore because it's been done to death and not just by the Bulls. It's very hard to reinvent something like that - the trick is when it is done well it looks incredibly easy and obvious.

That's what I was saying, its been done in it worked, move on.

That is why I said the club needs some fresh thinking, I think the club allowed itself to stagnate by concentrating too much on want went on on the pitch without realising what had got people their in the first place had become tired and outdated.

That is why I said the club needs some fresh thinking, I think the club allowed itself to stagnate by concentrating too much on want went on on the pitch without realising what had got people their in the first place had become tired and outdated.

Agreed, but to often people overlook the simple things because someone else is doing it differently, they think that they must follow.

The current poor form of Bradford may in the long run be a blessing in disguise, the club has a an opportunity to re-connect with its supporters, and seek out new ones, getting them to buy into the club and not into success. A far more substainable audiance can be built up by increasing crowdsduring adversity.

It may seem like the most impossible task in the world at the moment but with the right people getting out the right message it can be done.

Wakefield have increased crowds year on year with no success and a lot of adversity, if they can do it Bradford can.